The "Crowd Farm" idea is bankrupt - it is not 'free' energy; it is stealing energy from walking. Every joule it gets from you is one more joule you have to expend. NOBODY is going to like that unless they are at a health club. Why not have escalators that slip backwards under our weight to drive generators? That would work! Do I get an award?

Come to think of it, what exactly is so 'green' about saving energy? Let's see.. plants are green and they generally grow faster with warmer conditions, more water and more CO2; all the things power plants provide. So I guess NBC's use of the word 'green' isn't about plants - it's about cold cash that Al Gore and Maurice Strong stuff into their pockets by swindling people into buying carbon credits. 21st century snake oil salesmen ...

DWD, you bring up a good point: skeptics, cynics and the just plain greedy may see the climate crisis as the perfect opportunity to dupe believers into buying snake oil. This is in fact already happening - there have been issues with tree planting offsets and so on - and it's something that we all need to be aware of.

I'm enough of a cynic myself to have suspicions about the purity of Universal's motives in sponsoring Green Week. ;-)

But there are lots of people and companies out there who honestly and earnestly are trying to help balance some of the changes we as a species have made over the past 200 years, and who deserve our trust and respect.

In contrast, while your point about the advantages of warmth and higher CO2 to plants has merit on the surface, its only true enough to be misleading.

In the short term of the industrial revolution - about 200 years - we've released a significant portion of carbon that was laid down over the millions of preceeding years. Even if it took "only" 1 million years to lay down that carbon, that would mean we've released CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate 5000 times faster than it was sequestered naturally. (These are my own calculations - please feel free to make your own.)

The issue isn't that your point isn't true in a strict sense, it's how quickly the rest of the earth's ecosphere can adapt to the higher carbon levels and the resulting higher temperatures, sea level increases and other changes. Among the macro effects many of us have already seen within our lifetimes - earlier springs, later falls, armadillos farther north, etc. - if seawater acidity continues to rise (as it has been doing due to the increased atmospheric CO2), plankton will start having trouble forming shells. If the plankton die, the oceans die with them and we're screwed.

It's not a bad thing to have educated people out there questioning the green movement's assumptions and dogmas - that's what the scientific method is about - but when the evidence becomes overwhelming it's time to stop using questions to avoid thought and action.

I saw the capturing methane on Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe a few weeks ago. The farmer recycled the cow patties and captured the methane which he used to run his farm.

This "HHO" generator simply electrolyzes ordinary water, separating it into oxygen and hydrogen gases. Presumably, the hydrogen gas is then available for use in a combustion engine or a hydrogen fuel cell.

there are 2 point of view to look at 3 really. When looking at HHO converted engines.

The scientific view will say. It is a fundamental law of physics (the second law of thermodynamics) that a machine always outputs less usable energy than it consumes.

In this regards HHO gas is the same as gas from oil.

But here is the thing that many of the scientific wont tell you. And that is that HHO bye produce is water. Unlike oil based fuels witch is CO2. That makes it a green fuel.

The other thing they don't tell you is that you can use any water in a HHO generator. Even rain water and Bio-Filtered water (aka Piss).

And unlike gasoline your not going to be paying 3-4 bucks a gallon at the pump for Bio-Filtered water. That make it the economic pick.

After all if the second law of thermodynamics apply no mater what. Then why not use the system that will save you 3-4 bucks every 20 miles will lowing you daily CO2 output.

Well The above guy is right about the green fuel yes any water can be used. But dont forget that what he is refering to is seperating the hydrogen from the water and storing electricity in that way since it takes Electrolysis to cause H2O to break down. Its like a cheap battery that costs less to maintain. Any water will do but you still have to get electricity from some where. Ussualy sun light, wind, and nuclear is the most common and efficent ways we have right now with minimal waste. There was a blog here once about nuclear power being clean and yes it is. But back to green fuels. Its a joke. right now the only fuel that would be able to sustain humanity forever without messing our ecosystem is sun light. Sadly fully powered nations from sun light is a few centuries away. As far as i have heard germany is the leading country and their top solar pannels only take about 25% of the light from the sun. That amount is not small even though it looks to be sun is a very powerful sorce of energy it realeases so much energy that if a small fraction of earths surface facing it got 25% of its energy converted to electricity we would still have enough for the whole world, and all that happens at a few billion km away. Also the cool thing about that is it is replenished instantly so why dont goverments do a crash project on solar power?? Some are but greenpeace does not aproach things the right way. Agrevate enough people in power and they loose intrest and dont hear you out. Ohh i almost forgot the money problem. If power is taken from the sun and the solar pannles advance enough then all the people holding shares on oil companies hydro power or any other type of power would have some issues. Yes battery, solar panle, and any electric hardware supplier would be in bussiness but the main economy of the world would start crashing. So delaying solar power for all might not be as bad as some make it sound think about it WW3 And cheap power vs. Peace and Pay our Share of energy and ahh turn off that 1000w computer when you are finished reading sci-fi tech :D

DancesWithDachshunds, do you honestly think that in a country where 2/3 of the population are already obese - and the number keeps climbing - that expending those few extra joules you're talking about would be a BAD thing?

Not to be a buzzkill, but the Tate device doesn't produce anywhere near 9 watts at 36 volts. It's only capable of producing a few milliwatts of power at very low voltages... and requires a 100 foot antenna to do it.

"Sadly, fully powered nations from sun light is a few centuries away." is an ignorant statement. Right here on this Blog there have been at least two or more articles stating that recent breakthroughs in tech have made it possible to possibly gain up to 75 to 85% of the sun's energy. But the real question is will the big oil companies allow such things to come to fruition. If oil were to suddenly go. it would destabilize the world economy. think how many gas stations you pass by, now gone, add the number of employees that lost their jobs. truck drivers, refineries, drill crews, etc. it would just ripple that's why they came up with the "Alternative" of other fuels. Out there are working plans for bulbs that don't burn out and self recharging batteries. Tons of tech that's either dumbed down or "broken" for the public for profit.

R~

Wasnt the earth a much warmer place when dinosaurs ruled? Maybe its just cycling back to how it was originally. By my calculations I should have beach front property before the end of this and no winters. So far I dont see a down side.

If the world economy was to crash then it would be in line with the US economy.

The use clear gases in combustion engine if not going to remove the need for battery's and the like in cars,trucks of plains. But it will save money and C02. As for putting every one out of the oil business that will never happen. Oil is still used in other things besides gasoline.

Plastics.Blacktop,colling fluid's And million of other things are made with oil so i don't see use useing less gasoline putting the oil people out of business.

And if the knowledge is put out in to the public of how to make things like 75% solar cells. And HHO or HHO/gasoline hybridizes then It don't really matter what the the people in power think.

2 things you have to remember about use in the US.

1.It is ez'er to ask for forgiven then permission.

2. Here money is = to your debut. Because we are on the debut standered.

Bitley, the road to Hades is paved with good intentions.. I don't question the motives of companies jumping on the "let's bash CO2" bandwagon. Certainly, the capitalist ones perceive a profit or they wouldn't do it. But stock holder ROI has as much to do with scientific facts as 'consensus' when it comes to understanding how our climate actually works. If 99% ~think~ CO2 is hurting the environment - they still have not proven it and they never will because there is ZERO physical evidence to support the claim. IPCC computer 'models' are the only thing that suggest a possibility but those are not scientific because they are based on correlations and statistics, (not to mention some questionable data as well). Such models neither explain nor predict the real world when confronted with a wide range of data that they conveniently left out. I mentioned one already, the inconvenient fact that ice core data shows global warming PRECEDING CO2 increase - not the other way around. The IPCC models ignore that and merrily ASSUME the opposite with no basis to do so. Paleoclimatic data shows comparatively huge amounts, (4X and more), of CO2 in the atmosphere with no correlation whatsoever with temperature - OR bio-diversity for that matter, (reefs and polar bears apparently survived it BTW). Again, IPCC models cannot, and will not ever, explain that inconsistency because of the wrong assumption they make saying CO2 drives climate. That is ALL that it is! .. an assumption! If liberals have their way and ban fossil fuels based on a mere assumption, Africans, will never pull themselves out of proverty because farm tractors cannot run on solar panels; neither can hospitals or steel furnaces or aluminum smelters. While they starve and our economy is crippled, the single largest beneficiary of all of this CO2 crap will be CHINA because the communists will gladly IGNORE IT quicker than a protester in Tiananmen Square; just as they ignore the REAL pollution they spew to choke their population as I type this. (and remind me who was caught red handed getting campaign money from Chinese?). Al Gore and Maurice Strong are heavily invested in China. That explains their motivation; what is yours?

You're mentally bankrupt if you don't see the benefit of the "Crowd Farm" and how it can help reduce our carbon emissions. It doesn't make it any more difficult to walk, it just converts that wasted energy that you use to walk back into usable energy. Energy that you are using anyway just by walking. Even if you had to expend a little more energy to do the walking, that's not a bad thing either. We ARE a nation of lard asses anyway...

You're missing the point entirely. Instead of critiquing other ideas about how we can clean up our energy usage and stop killing the planet we live on, go out and come up with a better idea if you don't like these. If you can't, then shut up. If you can, then more power to you. You'll probably be very wealthy and die knowing you saved the planet. Congratulations.

I see.. I am mentally bankrupt but contradicting oneself on a public comment board is worthy of what, a journalism prize? You say that it doesn't and then you imply that it might! Which is it? I have BS degree and say that if the energy is being taken away from the pedestrian then the pedestrian MUST expend more work, (how much more simply can I state it???). As for the idea of forcing fat people to exercise; Lenin is smiling. Why stop there? Limit their food intake with higher taxes.
.
Back to point - CO2 IS NOT KILLING THE PLANET. No one has proven that it is; mounds of data says that it is not. Example: they just discovered 7,000 year old trees and tree stumps revealed by receding glacial ice in Garibaldi Provincial Park, Canada - it must have been a LOT warmer back then for there to have been a forest of trees there donchathink? .. and that was WITHOUT ANY human generated CO2 in the atmosphere. I and tens of thousands of climate scientists have REAL proof like that while the IPCC and Al Gore have their ... 'computer models'.

Umm, am I the only person on earth that questions the veracity of claims that temperatures are getting warmer based upon "recorded temperatures over the past hundred years or more". Are we really saying that the measurements of 100 or even 50 year old thermometers, much less any claims of temps in decades or centuries before that, are in ANY way accurate to a single degree or two? Am I missing something here? I mean since when can we accurately account for all the weather or temps back in the past when we had no satellites, digital thermometers, or weather computers. Also, as was previously stated, there have been plenty of epochs that have had MUCH higher temp, as well as much higher CO2 and oxygen contents than is currently in the atmosphere and live not only survived, but THRIVED. Dinosaurs also put out wayyyy more Methane than any cow will ever do in it's lifetime, no matter how gassy! It is just another scare tactic to further political agendas. In the 70's, they told us that a coming ice age was just around the corner. Maybe the only thing keeping the glaciers at bay is global warming and if we stop spewing out CO2, we'll all be eating mammoth burgers again?

Umm, am I the only person on earth that questions the veracity of claims that temperatures are getting warmer based upon "recorded temperatures over the past hundred years or more". Are we really saying that the measurements of 100 or even 50 year old thermometers, much less any claims of temps in decades or centuries before that, are in ANY way accurate to a single degree or two? Am I missing something here? I mean since when can we accurately account for all the weather or temps back in the past when we had no satellites, digital thermometers, or weather computers. Also, as was previously stated, there have been plenty of epochs that have had MUCH higher temp, as well as much higher CO2 and oxygen contents than is currently in the atmosphere and live not only survived, but THRIVED. Dinosaurs also put out wayyyy more Methane than any cow will ever do in it's lifetime, no matter how gassy! It is just another scare tactic to further political agendas. In the 70's, they told us that a coming ice age was just around the corner. Maybe the only thing keeping the glaciers at bay is global warming and if we stop spewing out CO2, we'll all be eating mammoth burgers again?

Umm, am I the only person on earth that questions the veracity of claims that temperatures are getting warmer based upon "recorded temperatures over the past hundred years or more". Are we really saying that the measurements of 100 or even 50 year old thermometers, much less any claims of temps in decades or centuries before that, are in ANY way accurate to a single degree or two? Am I missing something here? I mean since when can we accurately account for all the weather or temps back in the past when we had no satellites, digital thermometers, or weather computers. Also, as was previously stated, there have been plenty of epochs that have had MUCH higher temp, as well as much higher CO2 and oxygen contents than is currently in the atmosphere and live not only survived, but THRIVED. Dinosaurs also put out wayyyy more Methane than any cow will ever do in it's lifetime, no matter how gassy! It is just another scare tactic to further political agendas. In the 70's, they told us that a coming ice age was just around the corner. Maybe the only thing keeping the glaciers at bay is global warming and if we stop spewing out CO2, we'll all be eating mammoth burgers again?

Oops, sorry for the multiple posts. Computer is acting up and seemed to freeze up. Didn't realize that it spewed out the extra copies until the site refreshed.

DWD - humans are not the only thing that puts out CO2.... so much for that BS in Biology.. ;)

pendragon wrote "Dinosaurs also put out wayyyy more Methane than any cow will ever do in it's lifetime." Do you actually have the data to back this up? Anyway, the Dinosaurs didn't cut down the rainforests to feed their cows and clear forest land to build houses and cities. The plant life that is so vital to reducing the amount of CO2 in the athmosphere is being reduce everyday at a alarming rate. There is alot more factors that will increase the CO2 content in the athmosphere, such as, forest fires and volcanic activities. Unfortunatly we are not able to control natural disasters, but we cab reduce the amount of CO2 we create, this will help in the long run. The problem with today society is we think of the now, and cry about the problems we've created in the future. Lets think not of ourselves and our greediness but think of the future of our children.